Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kloy1334

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

[edit] kloy1334

Final

(2/9/2) Ends 06:56, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would like to nominate myself to be raised into an admin level, AKA sysop as I have provided approximately 50 article updates and regularly visit and review pages everyday or at least 3 times per week.

I will follow all terms and rules but may not be able to update as much as I will be talking and/or giving support to users.

Opposing would create an uprise in the ADA system as I have Hallermann Streiff syndrome.

Thank you.

Support

  1. -- orthogonal 03:12, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC). Since we have a well-known and easy to use method to remove abusive sysops, why not give him a chance?
  2. +sj+ 02:46, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) Thought he already was one. Did someone remove him? Uprising the ADA system sounds fun (then would they fix our dreadful Act and disabilities coverage?), but etiquette compels support for his 7{{+N355.


Oppose

  1. Too new. --Lst27 19:04, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. David Remahl 19:10, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) I do hate to oppose, but in this case more experience is clearly needed.
  3. Track record is inadequate to assess candidate's qualifications. --Michael Snow 20:11, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Way, way, way too new. -- Grunt   ҈  01:08, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)
  5. Later. Also, I'm not sure what he means by "Opposing would create an uprise in the ADA system". --Slowking Man 02:47, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
    I do hope the user isn't threatening to sue WP for discrimation under the Americans with Disabilities Act if not promoted, but it's hard to find another interpretation. I have Asperger's myself, in case anyone thinks I'm being biased here. Pakaran. 14:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Suggest you reapply when you have many months of history and many hundreds of edits. —Stormie 06:03, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Strongly oppose, for the moment. –Andre (talk) 21:33, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  8. Oppose anybody who threatens us if we don't make him an admin. RickK 22:42, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Way too new, too little community involvement, and the ADA uprise almost sounds like a threat, and not like a trusted members of the community -- Chris 73 Talk 02:59, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. It's obvious we're discriminating against him because of the way he looks, let's just come out and admit it. Also, small edit history and seems to be threatening us, but those are obviously only cover reasons used in order to perpetuate our pretty-people-only oligarchy. CXI 13:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Excellent start dude! I checked your edits. But < 100 edits is really a tad on the low side, since I haven't been able to establish a pattern yet, or figure out how you react if other people disagree with your editing. Take your time and make a bit more edits first. If you've made at least 500 edits and participated in at least one consensus building where you've shown yourself to be level headed, you can leave a message on my user talk page, and I'll renominate you. If you want to improve your chances though, make 1000 or even 1500 edits, many people only vote in your favor once you reach that mark. Hope you have a nice day! Kim Bruning 20:50, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. What Kim said. --MerovingianѤTalk 15:39, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • kloy has only contributed regularly (and I use the term somewhat loosely) to Wikipedia for a bit more than a month. I can't see much community involvement either (the only comments on User talk:Kloy1334 is the welcome message from Angela and an edit attribution notification from Kate). Just one edit on an article talk page. Also, I would like to see how his/her animosity towards American English develops — I haven't closely reviewed the changes from Commonwealth English to American English yet. As long as it is done in line with the MoS it's great. (edit: it seems to be ok) — David Remahl 19:10, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • To orthogonal and others: Could you please clarify the "well-known and easy to use method to remove abusive sysops"? I wouldn't exactly file ArbCom under "easy-to-use", and the list of administrators shows that no user has ever been forcibly de-sysoped. If we trust that anyone who asks for adminship will make a good and fair admin, why should admin powers be restricted at all? However, in my opinion, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." I would rather go through the hassle of voting on admins than having admin powers given to everyone and having most contributors and developers spend all their time fighting mass article reversions and deletion sprees (including the irreversable deletion of images). --Slowking Man 23:21, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • Slowking, I think orthogonal is in fact attempting to use sarcasm to point to the fact that no such policy exists. I may be wrong. Certainly there is no clear method. I would correct you on a minor point, however -- I believe that User:Kils was forcibly desysopped following a huge fiasco of some kind. Perhaps someone longer in the tooth than I am can explain....it happened roughly at the same time that I arrived here. Jwrosenzweig 23:24, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • That's possible, although I find it difficult to judge sarcastic intent through only text. --Slowking Man 06:29, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
        • As do I -- I base this on other conversations with orthogonal and comments he's made elsewhere about adminship. And as I say, I may be wrong. :-) Jwrosenzweig 13:46, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • User:168... was forcibly desysopped. VV 01:27, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.